Flaw in the IPP system

An offender who spent nearly 18 years in prison as the result of a legal error has been freed by the Court of Appeal. Niki Dean Haycock had been given a sentence of imprisonment for public protection — an IPP sentence — in April 2006, even though the offences he committed were not covered by IPP legislation that was in force at the time.

“I am absolutely elated that the IPP is over and that, after all these years, I am finally free,” Haycock said in a statement issued by his solicitor after a ruling delivered by Lord Justice Edis in the Court of Appeal on Friday.

The indefinite sentence Haycock had served in prison — more than 20 years — was nearly 18 years longer than he could have expected to spend in custody if he had been correctly sentenced.

Apart from a short period between late December 2023 and March 2024 when he was released on licence, Edis said that Haycock had been locked up for

• almost triple the length of the maximum sentence that could lawfully have been imposed for the relevant offence;
• four times the length of the period after which he would automatically have been released on licence; and
• eight times the length of the period after which he would first have become eligible for release on licence under the sentence substituted by the appeal judges on Friday.

The senior criminal appeal judge, sitting with Mrs Justice Ellenbogen and Sir Gary Hickinbottom, commended all members of Haycock’s current legal team for the “commitment and speed with which they have worked to identify and curtail an enduring serious injustice”.

Baxter Jephcott

Edis said that the error of law had been spotted in April by Baxter Jephcott, who was preparing for Haycock’s review hearing before the Parole Board. Jephcott — a recently-qualified solicitor at SL5 Legal, part of the Tuckers Solicitors group — instructed Stephen Knight to apply for leave to appeal nearly 20 years after the normal deadline had expired.

At Kingston upon Hull Crown Court in 2006, Haycock, who was then 27, admitted one offence of controlling prostitution for gain and two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The victim was his partner. Both were heroin addicts.

The recorder — part-time judge — who imposed the IPP sentence found that Haycock had controlled not only his victim’s prostitution but the victim herself, by rationing her drugs; by intimidation; and, as and when necessary, by resorting to violence. She was a vulnerable woman; particularly so because of her addiction. Haycock had used, intimidated, abused and assaulted her, said the judge. He had 27 prior convictions for 70 offences.

As the law stood at that time, an IPP sentence could be imposed only where a person had committed a specified violent or sexual offence. It also had to be a “ serious offence ” — one that was punishable by a sentence of 10 years or more.

But the maximum penalty for the sexual offence in Haycock’s case was seven years. The maximum for causing actual bodily harm was five years. As a matter of law, it was therefore not open to the court to impose an IPP sentence for any of the three offences of which he had been convicted in March 2006. Court of Appeal officials were unable to find out why this was not pointed out to the recorder at the time by prosecution or defence lawyers.

Allowing Haycock’s appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed the IPP he had been given for the sexual offence and replaced it with an extended sentence of seven years. Concurrent fixed sentences of three years for the assaults were left undisturbed.

The new extended sentence comprised a custodial term of five years followed by a two-year extension period. That meant Haycock would have been eligible for release on licence after two-and-a-half years and entitled to release on licence after five years.

Ahead of the appeal, he was recently granted parole. The court’s decision means that his licence conditions no longer apply.

Flaw in the system

In a paragraph of his judgment headed “a flaw in the system”, Edis said the case highlighted a profound limitation in the arrangements for considering IPP sentences, as well as the equivalent sentences of detention for public protection — DPP — that were passed on young offenders.

These sentences may be reviewed if the offender seeks to appeal or if a case is referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. But, said Edis, the Court of Appeal “has no means of identifying — or, thus, considering the lawfulness of — those sentences which have never been the subject of an application for leave to appeal, with the potential consequences of which this case provides a stark and disturbing example”.

He continued:

It is the view of this court that there is a clear and urgent need for a system to be put in place by which all cases in which those who remain subject to an IPP or DPP sentence and who have not appealed should be identified and made aware of the availability of advice.

But the judges did not want to raise all IPP prisoners’ hopes:

We would not wish to give the impression that the court will allow appeals in all cases where such sentences were passed. In many of them there will have been no error and the law may have permitted, or even required, an indeterminate sentence to be passed.

Reaction

Shortly after the ruling on Friday, Haycock issued this comment through his solicitor:

When I was sentenced in 2006, my barrister told me that I had no grounds to appeal. I accepted that advice and, for the last 20 years, I believed there was nothing I could do about my sentence.

I was shocked when Baxter Jephcott told me that the IPP had been imposed unlawfully. I deeply regret what I did and the harm I caused. I have never sought to excuse my offending. But I did not deserve to spend 20 years of my life behind bars, and I am glad the Court of Appeal has recognised this today in this important judgment.

I am absolutely elated that the IPP is over and that, after all these years, I am finally free. I can now look forward to spending time with my family.

I am celebrating with family today. We’re going go-karting today to celebrate.

The solicitor himself told me this:

What is particularly troubling in this case is that this was not a sentencing error on an evaluative question; it was a basic legal error. The Crown Court which imposed the sentence did not have the legal power to impose an IPP at all. Yet the sentence remained in place for almost 20 years.

It is troubling that, during Mr Haycock’s sentence, neither the Ministry of Justice nor the Parole Board noted this basic error. Mr Haycock’s case was reviewed a dozen times, at times by senior judges of the Parole Board, and none of them noticed this error.

I am very grateful to Stephen Knight for the speed with which he advised on and prepared the appeal. I am delighted for Mr Haycock who can now get on with his life.

This case also raises a much wider concern. Mr Haycock’s sentence came to light almost by accident, because his papers happened to be examined afresh for a Parole Board review. Mr Haycock had not instructed me to look into his sentence and the error could have gone unnoticed for much longer.

There may be other people still serving unlawful IPP or DPP sentences whose cases have never been appealed and whose sentences have therefore never been scrutinised in this way. The Court of Appeal has pointed out the “flaw in the system” that means unappealed IPP sentences, some of which may have been unlawfully imposed, never come to the attention of the court.

Comment

It’s the job of the Parole Board to consider whether a prisoner can be released on licence without endangering the public. But prisoners applying for parole do not necessarily have legal representation.

If the only legally-qualified people scrutinising an IPP prisoner’s continued detention are the judicial members of the Parole Board, it must surely be in the interests of justice for them to consider whether the prisoner had been lawfully sentenced in the first place.